How is the Relations between Israel and Arab nation?

In the case of Palestine as a historical phenomenon as conquer of the land of Palestine is considered definitive by the Muslims, we look at the measures that have been implemented by Imam and leader of the Muslims of this country to move towards it.
So we have no choice other than knowing that how Muslims' Caliph, Umar bin Khattab, behaved with this land after the conquest, and what measures he implemented? Did he divide it between people who had a part of the booty or was it dedicated?
On the other hand, we have to see what is Muslims religious approach of today about the issue?
Ebarat Al-moghny says in this regard as follows:
We do not know whether conquer territories, which were conquered by force at the time of the Prophet except Khyber, were divided between Muslims or not because the Prophet (Peace be upon him) divided the land into two parts. Half of it was confiscated for the benefit of his family and no tax must have been paid.
However, no other piece of land seized by force and overcome during Umar and after him, like Syria, Iraq and Egypt were not divided between Muslims.
Abu Obeida has said in the book "Al-Amval": Umar entered "Jabyeh" and decided to divide lands between Muslims. Moaz said to Umar after understanding his decision:
I swear to God! By this action what you do not like will happen and will occur to you. If you divide this land today, these people will have high income and great product, but a time later, these people will be eliminated, until only a man and a woman remain from them. Then another group will come but they would not achieve anything. So think of an idea to have the income of the lands for all Muslims.
After that Umar listened to Moaz's offer.
These statements clearly indicate all Muslim scholars believe that Palestinian land is dedicated to all Muslims, whether those existed at the time of the conquest of the land and whether those who were born after this event so far. It is evident that judgment and legal fatwa on this issue is the same and no one has been raised to oppose it.
According to the presentation the question arises:
What perspective and approach can Muslims have from a religious view after the occupation and usurpation of the land by the Jews?
Our next discussion is the answers to the question.
Before answering the above question, we should clarify the nature of the occupation of Palestine by Israel, as clarification of the nature of the occupation has a direct relation with the answer.
We will only refer to important achievements of Professor Rafiq Shaker Al-natsheh in his impartial prestigious investigations in the name of "Israel and Palestine- legitimate colonialism" in order not to fill the project by indulgence in naming resources which clarify the nature of the Israeli occupation.
Al-natsheh has said;
In this talk, I would like to cite the reasons that I have been able to achieve, assert the fact that in fact the establishment of the State of Israel is a colonial project. Thought of the organization and planning of the project in first stages were not in hands of Jews, as non-Jewish Zionists had proposed the project before Jewish Zionists and strived for it, and then carried it out. But Jewish Zionists interfered this project in the next step to play their role as brokers and executives of colonial states who are the original owners of the project.
The purpose of author of the colonial states that are the mastermind behind the project, as explained in detail in the various chapters, is the governments of France, Germany, Italy, the UK and America.
He added:
"When the colonial states succeeded in their project as a result of continuous efforts and activities of the US and the UK and were able to establish the state of Israel as an achievement for the Zionist project, it was naturally that the state become a colonial West base and a bridge database to pass to the Arab and Muslims' world, because the existence of this regime is nothing except a business-colonial plan raised from implemented colonial projects in the world'.
He says:
"The choice of Palestine to establish the state is a project of colonization which resulted from strategic importance of the land both economically and geographically (geopolitical), as it is placed between the three continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa on the one hand, and on the other hand, it is connected to Africa through the Gulf of Aqaba and it is connected to Europe through the Mediterranean sea and is linked to the far East by land. "
"Middle East importance for the free world is so much that whatever we say about its military and economic power, it will not be exaggeration yet."
General Eisenhower clearly says:
"If you look at the world only from the perspective of regional value, you do not find a place which is more important than the Middle East region in strategic terms."
He has revealed his awareness and knowledge about the only axis of the area.
Alfred Lilienthal, the Jewish American writer says:
"In 1838, only 25% of Western Europe's oil for military and industrial purposes was imported from the Middle East. However today, the Arabs' oil squares and fields provide more than 90% of Europe's needs. If the Arab countries' doors are closed to the West, organization or defense of the West area in the name of "NATO" or "North Atlantic Treaty" will be so weak that will mourn in grief."
For this reason, colonial states tried in the region in line with the policy of "divide and rule over" and used ethnic prejudices and to advance their goal by breaking the unity of the Arab world to have domination over the Arab world and the Islamic world.
By demystification of the issue of the Israeli occupation and its objectives, the short answer of the question that was raised will be as follows:
Muslims are assumed to expand their efforts in order to withdrawal all Palestinian land, and no form of communication with the Government which is colonial base of Western governments is not permitted, and Muslims are to avoid it. It should be noted that Iran's position towards the peace with Israel and rejecting it is due to the Islamic legal decree because according to all Muslim scholars' fatwa, Israel has occupied Palestinian land that belongs to all Muslims.
Here we are obliged to point out significant paradox and contradiction that has affected many, that these people consider peace as a permitted action with Israel from a religious perspective reasoning the peace verse (Al-Anfal, verse 61).
We should say that for two reasons reasoning this verse is not correct:
1. the subject of the issue is inconsistent with the meaning of the verse, because on the one hand, Palestine is occupied territory. As a result, of legal and doctrinal point of view it should have been withdrawn and be given back to legal religious owners of the land (Muslims).
On the other hand, what Qur'an emphasized on is disbelievers who are at war with Muslim in their land, not disbelievers who started fight in the land of Muslims. Witness the context is the verse.
2. The judgment given in the verse is sectional which terminates to Baraat Sura.
Sayyid Qutb has said in Tafsir Fi Zalal al-Quran while explaining the issue:
God's statement in the verse does not contain the last command and imperative for any time, but the final order was sent down in Baraat Sura. In this verse, Allah commanded His Messenger to acceot the peace expressed by the group that avoided any encounter with him and do not to have determination of war with him, whether or not until that time, a treaty has been signed.
With this verse, the situation was in a way that any peacemaking by unbelievers and the People of the Book (followers of Moses and Jesus) to Muslims was accepted until Baraat Sura's orders and rulings were sent down. After this, the disbelievers only faced two choices: converting to Islam or giving tribute and apart from these two, a third option would not be accepted from them.
The situation of peace and peacefulness will be recognized by Muslims only until the time spokesmen remain their words and do not betray. Otherwise, Muslims should fight them as far as possible, until everybody converts to Allah's religion and become believers.
Sayyid Qutb says:
I needed some deviation from the original issue and open parenthesis because some ambiguities and doubts are raised due to silliness very people are afflicted; those who have raised issues about jihad in Islam because the reality and the current situation of the world today puts heavy pressure on them on their spirits and thoughts. As a result, they think Islam's unchangeable way about humanity through the ways of converting to Islam, paying tribute or war is a radical extremism look and accuse their religion, which nature is unknown to them, to indulgence and extremism, while they see that on the one hand, modern ignorance has raised to fight with Islam with all the power and stands in front of it, and on the other hand, the Muslims, who have converted to Islam but do not understand its real nature and do not have a deep understanding towards it, are unable confront the forces of other religions' followers. As you can see and observe, the number of real pioneers and believers is low, and is even rare, and they do not have a sure base to rely on and trust it. By all these thoughts, the writers have looked into religious texts and avert its appearances and concepts in a way that their interpretation be compatible with the pressure of existing realities in the current world.
As a result, they know other interpretations of religion as radical and extremist concepts!
undoubtedly, they resort to the propositions [of religious texts] which are temporary, but they consider them as final provisions or notice statements which are subject to certain conditions, but set them for every situation [and consider them as absolute and general concepts] even when they reach final propositions and absolute texts, they interpret the statements and texts in a way that they become consistent with sectional texts revealed under certain conditions!
All the changes and developments that they apply in religious literature and statements are to say: Jihad in Islam in an exclusive meaning is for defending the honor of Muslims and their lands during the invasion of others, but Islam has signed its destruction by turning to jihad!
The concept of the defense in point of view of Islam is merely inhibition of the invasion of Islamic lands. In fact, in their point of view, Islam is unique in its scope or it must always be unique in its border area. Also, Islam has no right to invite others to convert to Islam and has no right to ask others to obey divine rules and laws, unless by use of talking, spreading, and explaining the texts or by physical tool which is modern ignorance domination tool over people. Thus, Islam should not invade modern ignorance, unless they invade Islam. In this case, Islam can rise to defend its right. Such people are power seeking speakers and microphone of powerful ones who are ignominious and will be dominated and defeated by growing awareness and conscious of Muslims, as God has promised:
God helps those who help him [and defend his religion]. God is strong and invincible.